U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law

[RandDisciple]

reported 15:38 bloomberg news

[Wphile]

Okay, from what I've read about the court ruling, it actually makes CFR worse than it was. For example, although it allows issue ads, they are all forbidden from mentioning a candidates name ever. This applies throughout the entire year! What the f*ck is the point of an ad if you can't point out where the congressperson stands on the particular issued. This is a travesty. And not only that, there is a federal crime involved if you mistakenly aired the wrong ad. This gives complete control to the media - not to mention the lawyers as this is bound to spur lawsuit after lawsuit. Absolute pathetic.

I now side with those that place the blame on W for signing it. He gambled on the courts, and I thought for sure the courts would do the right thing (silly me!), but they failed. And it was the GW appointee who created the wreck. The Bush 41 appointee wanted to throw out the whole thing, the clinton appointee wanted to keep the whole thing, and the GW appointee decided to rewrite the law the way s/he saw fit.

Now we have to rely on the SCOTUS to fix this. I'm pissed as all get out.

[aristeides]

Why do you think the reporting on this decision was so wrong?

[aristeides]

Which is more important, removing a talking point, or honoring an oath?

[Wphile]

I guess because they tried to get it out fast but since it was a 1600+ word ruling, they didn't bother with the details, hence the confusion. It's a wreck.

[Paulus Invictus]

Of the three judge panel, one said the complete law is un-Constitutional; another female judge ( A Clinton appointee) said it is Constitutional; the last judge decided to re-write the law making it both Un- and Constitutional. Only the first judge got it right. It is purely un-Constitutional and I hope the Supremes will get it eliminated.

[Sandy]

Is it me, or are a whole bunch of FReepers still misunderestimating Bush?

It's you.